Do not treat Trump’s attempts at constitutional nullification as legitimate
By 
This has been telegraphed in advance, but Trump officially announced that he plans to nullify the plain text of the first clause of the most important amendment to the United States Constitution:
On his most defining issue — immigration — Trump will issue 10 executive orders, his officials said Monday. He will attempt to end birthright citizenship, a move that would exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from the right to citizenship by birth that was established under the 14th Amendment.
It’s one of the actions that will likely face immediate legal challenges, as immigration advocates and human rights organizations await details about just how sweeping Trump’s action will be.
This will be applicable to many things over the next four years, and cannot be said enough:
one reason i am adamant that we should not treat the constitution as purely or exclusively a form of law is that it cedes the field to clever lawyers. “oh, well if some chuds in trump’s white house says birthright citizenship doesn’t exist then i guess it doesn’t exist.” but— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) January 20, 2025 at 11:07 AM
the constitution is a public and political document as much as a legal one and constitutional meaning is a public and political process. trump can say X but other political institutions, and the nation’s various publics, have to agree for it to mean anything— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) January 20, 2025 at 11:07 AM
The response to Trump’s assertions about birthright citizenship from the non-fascist factions in American politics should be unhesitating and unambiguous: the 14th Amendment in plain terms guarantees birthright citizenship. Every journalist who both-sides this, every legal academic who does a “well actually” contrarian op-ed, etc. — these people are just straightforwardly on the other side, period. Nobody committed to equal citizenship should treat these arguments as worthy of consideration as the Federalist Society tries to build up momentum to go from Eastman to the median vote of the Court.
And needless to say the next Democratic president should treat a party-line Supreme Court holding that the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean what it says the way President Lincoln treated Dred Scott — as a nullity that should not influence administration policy.